YES it is a matter of abysmal management by successive governments. And the most abysmal thing about this management regime is the in-beddedness of government with big business and the consequent pandering to their wishes for a very high immigration rate.

I wrote:

>> A solid economic performance does not translate into a solid per-capita economic performance <<

You retorted:

<< Sorry, but that is precisely what it has done… >>

Not really. Very strong economic growth accompanied by rapid population growth has translated into very small per-capita economic growth. And that is the average, which means that for many people it would have declined somewhat. No doubt if we’d had a much lower rate of population growth through the years of the mining boom, we would have seen MUCH better average per-capita economic growth.

[Oh this IS fun. Round and round in circles we go!!]

Indeed Ludwig. Pericles is also omitting the drawing down or sell-off of productive assets and the other significant and growing issues we face including the Small-Medium business crisis. He also hasn't factored in the increase in cost of living (rents, electricity) which has 2 million Australians having to resort to foodbank and 10s of thousands sleeping on the streets. GDP and GDP per capita do not reflect overall prosperity and are grossly overstating our economic success by failing to consider what has been lost in the process. The resources we are selling off at break-neck speed cannot be readily replaced. And as we are increasingly seeing, we are a houses and holes economy - the end result of a high-immigration policy in the pursuit of "economic growth".

TrevorWM, I'm unsure how you believe consigning Australians and their wildlife to unnecessary cruelty through ridicule is useful. Certainly, those that profit from the destruction of wildlife habitat use the same philosophy - anyone who objects is called a NIMBY. Will you feel the same way when they turn their gaze onto you or something/someone you love? Somewhere in your ramblings I get the sense that you value human life but on the other hand you're also supporting further destruction of the systems that support us - this is the ideology of a cancer cell. But if you are of the belief that we are not a cancer (and I agree), then when would you suggest we stop behaving like one?

The reality is that our economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of our ecology. Without sufficient wildlife corridors and respect for the other life we share this country with, our ecological systems collapse and our economy will then necessarily collapse.

continued next post...

Per capita economic growth is influenced by a lot of factors, such as terms of trade and technology. The 2006 Productivity Report into Immigration (see link in my previous post) tried to quantify this and found that the contribution of immigration (i.e., population growth) to growth in per capita GNP was miniscule (see graph on page 155), with most of the benefit from this contribution going to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves, while the wages of the bulk of the population are depressed. A bigger total GNP is no great achievement. China has a vastly greater GNP than Denmark, but where would you rather live as an ordinary person?

To be fair to Pericles, he lives in an electorate composed of leafy suburbs, even if KarlTX didn't guess the right one. He is probably insulated by his wealth from most of the problems that afflict ordinary mortals, so he simply doesn't see them. He most likely doesn't have to worry about long waiting lists in the hospitals, as he can afford private health insurance. He most likely can afford private education, so he doesn't have to worry about his children being shortchanged in the schools because the public school is underfunded and the teacher has to deal with so many children who don't speak English. He can afford, no doubt, all the space, privacy, and greenery that he wants. No high rise rabbit hutch for him, unless he prefers to live that way. If roads and other infrastructure need repair, his suburb is no doubt top of the list.

He will have a big task convincing other people, though. He might look back at the reaction to Kevin Rudd's "Big Australia"

http://www.smh.com.au/national/big-australia-vision-goes-down-like-a-lead-balloon-20100803-115g7.html#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1352940070560&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smh.com.au

This is classic.

When I introduce facts - such as the continuing improvement in our per capita GDP - the only defence is to offer an opinion about those facts.

>>Very strong economic growth accompanied by rapid population growth has translated into very small per-capita economic growth.<<

This would seem to be an admission that per-capita growth continues to improve - but no! Apparently these facts don't count, in the face of unsubstantiated assertions...

>>All the compelling evidence that Divergence, Matt Moran and others have put to you, you choose to just simply dismiss!<<

Not evidence, Ludwig. Opinions.

Yes, I know this is an opinion forum. But how come my opinions are somehow irrelevant, when they are supported by real data, and yours are somehow sacrosanct, because...?

Oh, I see. Divergence has the answer.

>>Pericles, he lives in an electorate composed of leafy suburbs, even if KarlTX didn't guess the right one. He is probably insulated by his wealth from most of the problems that afflict ordinary mortals, so he simply doesn't see them. He most likely doesn't have to worry about long waiting lists in the hospitals, as he can afford private health insurance. He most likely can afford private education, so he doesn't have to worry about his children being shortchanged in the schools because the public school is underfunded and the teacher has to deal with so many children who don't speak English. He can afford, no doubt, all the space, privacy, and greenery that he wants.<<

So, only public servants who live in FNQ have valid views.

That's all right then.

Have a great day. I hope the beach wasn't too crowded.

Matt Moran, Australia does not lack any resources, only the will to develop them.

Pericles,

It is curious that you only have to assert your facts, while I can link to supporting evidence for my mere opinions.

Dallas,

Infrastructure has a lifetime of roughly 50 years. This means that a stable population would have to replace 2% of its infrastructure every year. If you then have 2% population growth on top of that, you have to spend twice as much. New residents in a community immediately need roads, houses, schools, ports, electricity networks, sewer systems, etc., etc., but it is likely to be decades before they have contributed enough to pay for their share, if they ever do. The economist Jane O'Sullivan (see Feb. 2012 Economic Affairs) has calculated that the 1.4% population growth that we had last year cost us 9.6% of total GNP, She based this on a very conservative estimate of $200,000 cost per person. Others are up to twice as high. Infrastructure Australia estimates a $770 billion infrastructure backlog. The American economist Lester Thurow estimates a cost of 12.5% of GNP to support 1% population growth.

Simply blaming poor planning for the crowding, congestion, and crumbling and overstretched infrastructure and public services doesn't deal with the question of where the money is going to come from. If the politicians borrow the money, they will have to slow down on immigration to allow it to be repaid. People like you would probably be the first to scream if they raised taxes. So we get what we have. Divert money from infrastructure maintenance and public services for existing residents to growth infrastructure for more people. Also raise utility bills to force existing residents to pay for expansion of the network. Let housing costs triple from the 1970s in terms of the median wage, because it is cheaper to pack the new arrivals into a few big cities. Is it really any wonder that a lot of people are unhappy?